Table 4. Cox proportional hazard analysis and competing risks analysis of pure APD and pure CAPD patients.

Pure APD vs. Pure CAPD outcomes	Cox proportional hazard analysis						Competing risks analysis
	Univariate			Multivariate*			Univariate			Multivariate*,†
	HR	95% CI	p-value	HR	95% CI	p-value	HR	95% CI	p-value	HR	95% CI	p-value
2001–2010, APD (n = 2,184) vs. CAPD (n = 2,244)
All-cause mortality	1.20	1.06–1.36	<0.01	1.21	1.06–1.37	<0.01	1.16	1.02–1.32	0.02	1.15	1.01–1.31	0.04
Technique failure	1.16	0.99–1.35	0.05	1.21	1.04–1.41	0.02	1.13	0.97–1.31	0.13	1.15	0.98–1.33	0.08
2001–2004, APD (n = 369) vs. CAPD (n = 390)
All-cause mortality	1.17	0.90–1.52	0.23	1.16	0.89–1.51	0.29	1.18	0.91–1.53	0.22	1.13	0.85–1.48	0.40
Technique failure	0.77	0.57–1.05	0.10	0.74	0.54–1.01	0.06	0.75	0.55–1.02	0.07	0.74	0.54–1.01	0.05
2005–2007, APD (n = 581) vs. CAPD (n = 595)
All-cause mortality	1.43	1.15–1.78	0.001	1.54	1.24–1.93	0.001	1.31	1.06–1.63	0.01	1.39	1.11–1.75	<0.01
Technique failure	1.59	1.22–2.08	0.001	1.63	1.25–2.13	<0.001	1.47	1.12–1.91	<0.01	1.47	1.12–1.92	<0.01
2008–2010, APD (n = 1,234) vs. CAPD (n = 1,259)
All-cause mortality	1.06	0.87–1.29	0.58	1.00	0.82–1.22	0.98	1.04	0.86–1.27	0.66	0.99	0.81–1.22	0.97
Technique failure	1.17	0.92–1.48	0.20	1.25	0.98–1.59	0.07	1.16	0.92–1.47	0.21	1.20	0.95–1.51	0.13

Abbreviation: APD, automatic peritoneal dialysis; CAPD, continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis; CI, confidence interval; HR, risk ratio.

^*The control variables included in the multivariate model were age, gender, diabetes mellitus, cirrhosis of liver, cerebrovascular disease, ischemic heart disease, chronic heart failure, events of peritonitis, icodextrin usage, and premium wage classes.

^†Fine and Gray regression model.